Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project

###################################################

Quote of the Week: “I’m going to talk about why the evidence in the record shows that the endangerment finding should be vacated. I want to be clear at the outset that we are not asking the Court to adjudicate a disputed question of science. Instead –“

“Good.” Exchange between Attorney Harry MacDougald and David Sentelle, Chief Justice of the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit

###################################################

Number of the Week: $96/MWh

###################################################

THIS WEEK:

Quote of the Week: The above quote was taken from the transcript of the litigation by the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, et al, against the EPA challenging EPA’s endangerment finding. This is but one small example of the reluctance of Federal judges to challenge Federal agencies that declare their proclamations are scientifically correct.

The transcript also reveals the intolerance Federal judges for challenges to the logic used by government bodies declaring themselves to be scientific. Harry MacDougald asserted that the EPA, and the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), has no logical basis for concluding that it is 90 to 99 percent certain that humans are the cause of most of the recent warming.

The key point is that of the 16 variables identified in the IPCC report as forcing agents of global warming / climate change used in its models (a number of natural forcing agents are missing), the IPCC report specifies that the level of understanding for 11 is very low to low. Yet the IPCC comes up with a 90 to 99 % certainty in the results of its models.

The judges recognized that the EPA looked at three studies, IPCC AR4, the reports the US Climate Change Science Program (now the US Global Change Research Program) and the National Research Council. The last two are little more than rubber stamps of the IPCC. The EPA called the three reports independent, yet all have the same basis for lack of certainty

The judges would have none of MacDougald’s argument that it is illogical to conclude that three reports, each with virtually identical low degrees of certainty, can be combined to produce a high degree of certainty. It is as if one meteorologist predicts that there is a 30% chance tomorrow will be a bright sunshiny day, and this is repeated by two other meteorologists, one can logically conclude tomorrow will be a bright, sunshiny day.

Not only is science at jeopardy in Federal courts, but logic is as well. Uncertainty can be made certainty by repetition – it is additive?

The consolidated case number is 09-1322 and the dates of the oral arguments were February 28 and 29, 2012. The transcripts are not available on the web. The relevant pages are 15 to 25.

******************

Ad Hoc Science: As expressed in TWTW, over the past two weeks, satellite measurements of the Arctic show that the sea ice this summer was at its lowest since satellite measurements began in 1979. This year the winter sea ice of the Antarctic reached its maximum extent since satellite measurements began. Now some scientists are maintaining that the expansion of Antarctic sea ice is consistent with human caused global warming. The increase in Antarctic ice is in response to increased wind and the ozone hole. However, the reduction in Arctic ice was also in response to increased wind, which broke up the ice.

In advocating the solar-cosmic ray hypothesis, that cosmic rays, modulated by the sun, can cause changes in cloud cover, Sevensmark stated the hypothesis is consistent with the apparent oscillation of temperatures (and sea ice) between the two poles. When cloud cover is reduce, the Arctic warms because it receives more solar energy, but the Antarctic cools because the bright ice of the Antarctic reflects more solar energy. Please see links under Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up and Changing Sea Ice.

******************

Historic Temperature Data: David Whitehouse reports that the historic HadCRU4 database of surface temperatures has been altered somewhat from the earlier database in March of this year. This should not be disturbing assuming there are solid reasons for the alterations. However, none were given. The failure to give reasoning is similar to NASA-GISS, which makes significant alterations to the historic database, particular in early years.

There has been a new report in resolving biases in sea surface temperatures introduced by different methods of measuring sea surface temperatures. These biases were discussed in the 2008 NIPCC Report, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. If the research holds up, the results are very interesting. The surface data show a cooling from about 1940 to about the mid-70s. NASA-GISS recently removed this cooling from its surface data. Please see links under Measurement Issues and the link on a warming bias under NIPCC Reports.

******************

PSYOPS: The US Army has a specialization called Psychological Warfare, Psychological Operations, or, simply Psyops. The Department of Defense defines Psychological Warfare as: “The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare

Given the rash of opinion polls of scientists that have been manipulated to produce a desired result – the 97% claim – and the opinions expressed by psychologists about the attitudes of skeptics of the claim that human emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming, one may infer that Psyops are being used.

The question is against whom? Are the targets the skeptics, or are the targets politicians and decision makers that may be persuaded that skeptics have no scientific basis to be skeptical of the pronouncements of the IPCC and its followers? Certainly, US Senators citing the scientifically preposterous survey claiming that from over 10,000 scientists surveyed, 75 out of 77 believe that humans are causing dangerous global warming indicates the targets are politicians and other decision makers. Please see links under PSYOPS and the September 1, 2012 TWTW.

******************

Export Crude? A controversy is brewing that few would have considered possible even two years ago. Shell Oil has requested permission from the Department of Commerce to export crude petroleum from the US. As of this time, the amount, source, and destination are not specified. According to law, the Federal government must grant permits for the export of crude petroleum. BP has a permit to export crude to Canada for refining. Shell has extensive oil leases in south Texas and in North Dakota. The destination of the Shell permit promises to bring political fireworks. Please see Article # 3.

******************

Rebranding Global Warming: Apparently the EU finds that fears of global warming / climate change no longer motivates the public in accepting outrageous increases in electricity costs from green energy. It has now started a publicity campaign for green energy called Worldulike. Perhaps publicity campaign could use the slogan “Give up carbon for a healthy planet and a healthy you.” Of course, carbon includes foods, breathing, etc. But why bother with details? Please see link under Problems in the Orthodoxy.

******************

What’s the best climate question to debate? Judith Curry asked that question on her web site. TWTW proposes the one Fred Singer asked of James Hansen several weeks ago: “What it the most compelling physical evidence you have that late 20th century warming was caused by greenhouse gas emissions?” In response, he labeled Singer to be an obfuscator. Please see link under Seeking a Common Ground and September 21, 2012 TWTW.

******************

Number of the Week: $96 / MWh. In July 2012 the Energy Information Agency (EIA) published estimates of the levelized cost of generating electricity, starting in 2017. The cost for onshore wind was $98 / MWh, which, on the surface, compares favorable with the levelized cost of generating electricity from coal of $97.7 / MWh. The wind industry is using these numbers to claim that wind power will be competitive with other sources within a few years. The claim is false.

The EIA has two sets of rankings. One is for dispatchable technologies and the second for non-dispatchable technologies. A dispatchable technology is one that can be relied upon when the electricity is demanded – humans control. The non-dispatchable technology is one that cannot be relied upon – nature controls. The technologies are not comparable.

The modern world requires reliable electricity to turn on lights, run factories, operate elevators, traffic signals, electric motors, etc. Dispatchable technologies meet the needs of modern society. Non-dispatchable technologies do not. Thus, dispatchable technologies are the primary sources of electricity and non-dispatchable technologies are the secondary sources. The only economic justification for implementing non-dispatchable technologies is that they reduce total costs to the consumer. Increasingly, the evidence is compiling that they do the opposite. Green advocates ignore the critical distinction between dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies, and many politicians do not understand it – reliability.

Even the Wall Street Journal failed to make this critical distinction. Please see Article # 1, which gives the Journal’s cost comparisons at the bottom of the article. For the EIA rankings, please see http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm. For a fuller discussion of the EIA estimates, please see the July 21, 2012 TWTW.

###################################################

ARTICLES:

For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: http://www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

NEWS YOU CAN USE:

[SEPP Comment: A long post on the efforts to get rid of the inconvenient graph of temperatures that included a Medieval Warm Period (warmer than 1990) and Little Ice Age. The graph was based on the work of HH Lamb and appeared in the first two IPCC reports.]

The modus operandi of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) has been to accumulate evidence to champion rather than challenge a hypothesis, namely that rising carbon dioxide levels will in future cause dangerous climate change.

[SEPP Comment: Link to a pamphlet containing columns in the Wall Street Journal on the issue.]

Questioning European Green

‘The Government needs to radically re-think energy policies’

For the sake of the economy, the UK needs to invest in gas and nuclear power and drop the wind farms and disadvantageous “green policies”, writes Ruth Lea.

[SEPP Comment: Comparing costs of alternative methods of generating electricity in England. When calculating wind, the costs of providing an additional source to provide reliable electricity when wind fails must be included.]

[SEPP Comment: 1) Force the shutdown of existing power plants. 2) Create a crisis for future electricity. 3) Demand the government spend a hundred billion pounds to address the crisis. The energy bureaucrats dream. It will fund friends who will generously reward the bureaucrat upon retiring from “public service.”]

Why Wind Won’t Work

Big wind will take any problem you are trying to solve — and make it worse.

[SEPP Comment: Long time alarmist and Climategate team member Kevin Trenberth, the head of the climate analysis section at the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, expresses displeasure in the direction the IPCC is taking. Trenberth claims the science is solid.]

[SEPP Comment: Pielke will be traveling for the next two weeks and makes 7 assertions some readers may wish to challenge. Among these is the statement there has been warming in over the last several decades, as measured by the ocean heat content. The warming has been less than predicted by the IPCC models.]

“We found corrosive water everywhere we looked, particularly off California and Oregon,”

[SEPP Comment: By talking to journalists in the manner quoted, the researchers have ceased to be scientists. No where does the article state that acidity is measured by pH. Prior reports state the measured pH and it is not that of an acid and indicated that the problem with the hatchery may be the placement of the intake pipes. The pH varied, but measured a base.]

The overall conclusion is that global temperature datasets are fluid and change from month to month, and this must be taken into account in any analysis. It would be nice to have explanations for such changes.

[SEPP Comment: Adjusted for wealth, income, population, etc, there has been a decrease in costs of tornado damage since 1950 in the US. Roughly, tornados cause twice the damage of earthquakes, and hurricanes cause twice that of tornados.]

[SEPP Comment: Unfortunately what appeared to be a solid effort to clearly mark the deference between the candidates is becoming less so. For example, the web site is referencing reports such as ocean acidification – a non-scientific, alarmist term.]

[SEPP Comment: To separate the facts from the rhetoric on the increase in electricity costs, one must separate the increase costs of fuel in traditional sources of electricity generation and the increase in costs from wind, including the costs of the systems needed to provide needed electricity when wind fails.]

[SEPP Comment: The Price-Waterhouse-Cooper report offers insights into the industries and products that can benefit from low cost natural gas and natural gas liquids. According to the report, thanks to the natural gas revolution, the US is now the lowest cost ethylene producer which goes into a multitude of products, particularly plastics.]

[SEPP Comment: Google is touted as a supporter and it is cash rich. Thus, there is no need for subsidies or mandates. The gas and oil industries using hydraulic fracturing did not need subsidies or mandates to develop what promises to be a strong, thriving industry. Why should off shore wind need them?]

[SEPP Comment: A significant issue to the author. For years, environmental organizations stopped or tried to stop residential development with concepts such as view-shed – the traditional sightlines of the valley or the mountains that must be preserved. Most environmental organizations have been very quiet when it comes to industrial wind.]

[SEPP Comment: The project of drilling 6 kilometers to the earth’s mantle may significantly contribute to scientific knowledge of the earth’s crust and mantle. But the press release also states: “Understanding the complex working of our planet, its interplay with life, and the potential changes to global climate and environment caused by human activity is simply no longer just an option to satisfy scientific curiosity:” Human caused climate change is a justification for drilling to the mantle?]

11 thoughts on “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup”

The judges would have none of MacDougald’s argument that it is illogical to conclude that three reports, each with virtually identical low degrees of certainty, can be combined to produce a high degree of certainty.
—————
You need to brush up on your logic skills there I think.

The mere assertion that the IPCC report is highly uncertain is an insufficient basis for the train of logic used.

The mere assertion that the dependent reports add nothing, is also insufficient basis for the train of reasoning used.

Incidentally, I was at a conference recently when a participant noted, after having been informed of the various potential legal challenges to California’s GHG control law, including its cap and trade program, that may yet be brought, based upon minute details of the law, that could nullify the law, noted that he was amazed since that could not be the case in Europe.

We seem to be in a bubble that on the one hand encourages potentially outrageous claims based upon “peer” reviewed work, while on the other hand subject these programs to legal scrutiny.

My observation is that the US government actions appear to be under a far less scrutiny standard than state actions. The US actions don’t have to consider Commerce Clause issues, while state actions do, including the “dormant” commerce clause that considers state action that may work against the economic issues of another state.

Its unfortunate that Federal action is not reviewed as closely as state action.

Can I bring this up here? In my home town of Prince George BC the local newspaper, The Citizen and city hall , has swallowed climate change means man caused warming hook line and sinker. City hall now has a website showing what climate change, warming, will do to the city. Have a look, http://www.princegeorge.ca click on city of Prince George, follow the climate change link under the enviroment tab. Oh the local university is also making lots of coin in research grants off this also. The only thing is they at city hall may count the hits as a positive.

No offense meant to anyone. I just want to see discussion of reality, as opposed to uninformed rants, monaing about the way things should be, and tilting at windmills.

Judges do not decide whether things are “scientific” or not, or which of two parties has a more scientifically oriented line of argument.

Judges ensure that laws are correctly applied.

Judges largely defer to experts to declare what experts believe, and largely defer to scientists to decalre what scientists believe.

Looking up Daubert on wikipedia or elsewhere is a good place to start. Judges can loosely declare whether a potential expert witness can be brought in as an expert witness in scientific matters. Beyond that, the judges do not assess the scientificyness of presented “science.”

And why should they?

Why would judges be seen as better to judge what is scientificky than the actual scientists?

In court,the battle falls to the opposing expert witnesses vying for favor from the jury. The judge makes sure processes are followed, and oversees assingment of punishment.or damages.

So, judges largely defer to scientists to say what is sciency enough. Thoes of us may belive, accurately, that the fear-monger doomsday cultists are not being scientific, but the fact remains that these people have PhDs, have jobs that require certain training and skills and are scientist jobs, and there is a community of scientist-peers who recognize the doomsday cult-scientists as scientists proper.
Done.

Similarly, in court, judges do not decide what medical practices are OK and which are not; clinicians do. Malpractice and oher medical issues dependNOT upon established efficacy, but upon what is prevailing pratice, or what is a recognized pratice among a recognized, substantial minority of practitioners. This minority can be as small as one practitioner.

So, all this to say theat the courts are genrally gonna defer to experts, and let experts duke it out in front of a jury, and let the jury decide who is more sciency.

“Number of the Week: $96 / MWh. In July 2012 the Energy Information Agency (EIA) published estimates of the levelized cost of generating electricity, starting in 2017. The cost for onshore wind was $98 / MWh, which, on the surface, compares favorable with the levelized cost of generating electricity from coal of $97.7 / MWh. The wind industry is using these numbers to claim that wind power will be competitive with other sources within a few years. The claim is false.”

Splendid. It’s CHEAPER THAN COAL! Stop all subsidies immediately, they’re no longer necessary.
Oh, and stop all mandated preference of wind-generated electricity; as it is cheaper it should have it easy conquering the market.

re: Shell Seeks to Export U.S. Oil
Why does Shell need permission? Needing license to export is equivalent to a tax. Taxing exports is, to my poor little pea brain, is unconstitutional. I’m sure gov’t shysters, and I mean that in the most insulting way, have managed to provide ‘legal’ rationale to the issue.

But, what do we do about Article Ⅰ, section 9, which to my knowledge has never been amended or repealed.

Mail online: “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it” Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/scien cetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
A quote: Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’